Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local 484

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 987 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS '& SALESMEN , 'LOCAL NO. 484 987
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Packinghouse , Food and
Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization , by discharging,
laying off, refusing to reinstate employees , or in any other manner discriminat-
ing in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union adherence or
activities in a manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT promise employees economic benefits to discourage member-
ship in the above-named or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization , to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Simon Littleton , J. C. Comick , and James Sims immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, and
-make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against them.
AMERICAN COMPRESS WAREHOUSE , DIVISION OF
FROST-WHITED COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title) .
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola ), 701 Loyola Avenue , New Orleans , Louisiana , Telephone
Number, 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No . 484 and
Clifford L. Aksland , d/b/a Sunrise Transportation
Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen , Local Union No . 484 and
Continental Baking Company
Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen , Local Union No. 484 and
Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco
Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen , Local Union No . 484; and
Continental Baking Company and Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a
Sunrise Transportation . Cases Nos. 00-CC-217, 20-CC-248,
20-CC-249, and 20-CE-5. June 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise
Transportation , herein called Aksland or Sunrise; Continental Baking
137 NLRB No. 98.
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company, herein called Continental; and Oroweat Baking Co. of
San Francisco, herein called Oroweat, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Twen-
tieth Region, on June 20, 1961, issued a consolidated complaint alleg-
ing that Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484,
herein called Respondent Union, had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (A) and (B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and that Respondent Union and Conti-
nental had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Sections 8(e) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly
served upon the Respondents and the Charging Parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in
substance, that the Respondent Union has engaged in, induced, and
encouraged, and is engaging in, inducing, and encouraging, individuals
employed by Continental and Oroweat to engage in strikes, slowdowns,
and refusals in the course of their employment to handle or prepare
bakery products for shipment by Sunrise and has threatened, coerced,
and restrained, and is threatening, coercing and restraining, Conti-
nental and Oroweat where the objects thereof were and are to force
or require Continental and Oroweat to enter into an agreement pro-
hibited by Section 8(e) of the Act, whereby such employers cease or
agree to cease doing business with Sunrise, and to force or require
Continental and Oroweat to cease doing business with Sunrise. The
complaint further alleges that Respondent Union and Respondent
Continental have entered into an agreement whereby Continental has
ceased and refrained and agreed to cease and refrain from doing
business with Sunrise and have at all times material continued and are
continuing to maintain and give effect to said agreement.
Respondent Union's answer, filed on June 30, 1961, admits certain
jurisdictional and factual allegations of the complaint, but denies the
commission of unfair labor practices. Respondent Continental's an-
swer denies that it has entered into an agreement with Respondent
Union in violation of 8 (e).
On July 21, 1961, all parties to the proceeding entered into a motion
to transfer this proceeding directly to the Board for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and decision and order. The parties stipulated
that they have waived their rights to a hearing before a Trial Exam-
iner and to the issuance of an Intermediate Report, that the charges,
consolidated complaint, and the transcript of testimony in Shore v.
Bakery Wagon Drivers d; Salesmen Local Union No. 484, Civil No.
39957, N.D. Cal., June 27, 1961, shall constitute the entire record in
the case and that no oral testimony is necessary or desired by any of
the parties. On August 1, 1961, the Board granted the motion, ordered
BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 989
the transfer of the proceedings to the Board, and granted permission
to the parties to file briefs. All parties filed briefs.
Upon the basis of the parties' stipulation, the Respondents' answers,
the briefs, and the entire record in the case , the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Continental is, and has been at all times material herein, a corpora-
tion engaged at Redwood City, California, and elsewhere, in operat-
ing bakeries and in the sale and distribution of breads and other bak-
ery products. During the past 12 months, Continental, in the course
and conduct of its said business at its Redwood City plant here in-
volved, manufactured, processed, sold, and shipped bakery products to
points outside the State of California valued in excess of $50,000, and
caused to be shipped to it from sources outside the State of California,
raw materials, goods, and supplies valued at in excess of $50,000.
Oroweat is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation
engaged at San Francisco, California, and elsewhere, in operating
bakeries and in the sale and distribution of breads and other bakery
products. During the past 12 months, Oroweat, in the course and
conduct of its said business at its San Francisco plant here involved,
manufactured, processed, sold, and shipped bakery products to points
outside the State of California valued in excess of $50,000, and caused
to be shipped to it from sources outside the State of California, raw
materials, goods, and supplies valued at in excess of $50,000.
Sunrise is engaged as a common carrier duly licensed by the Inter-
state Commerce Commission and the State of California Public Utili-
ties Commission, transporting primarily bakery products to various
points in California and neighboring States, with its place of business
at Manteca, California. During the past 12 months, in the course and
conduct of this business, Sunrise received in excess of $50,000 for serv-
ices performed for Continental, Oroweat, and other bakery whole-
salers in California, who are themselves engaged in interstate com-
merce and each of which annually ships bakery products valued at in
excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of California.
Accordingly we find, and the Respondent Union admits, that Conti-
nental, Oroweat, and Sunrise are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts-background
Continental and Oroweat are engaged in the baking and distribu-
tion of bakery products from their plants in San Francisco to points
in and out of California. Both are members of Bay Area Council
of Bakery Operators, Inc., herein called Association, a multiemployer
bargaining group, and each has a current contract with Respondent
Local 484 covering drivers, loaders, shipping and receiving clerks,
machine wrappers and packers, and inside foremen. For a period of
years Continental, Oroweat, and other employer members of Associa-
tion have used common carriers for shipping their bakery products
to points outside San Francisco. Sunrise, a common carrier licensed
,by the State PUC and the ICC, is one of these carriers and is located
in Manteca, California. Sunrise has seven employees; six are rep-
resented by Teamsters Local 439, which has geographical jurisdiction
over the area where Sunrise is located, and one (Huarte) is repre-
sented by Respondent Union. Sunrise is a party to contracts with
both Local 439 and Respondent Union covering its respective em-
ployee members.
In addition to the contracts between Respondent Union and Sun-
rise , and Respondent Union and the members of the Association, there
exists, according to the Respondent Union, an oral guarantee given
by Continental to Respondent. There is sharp conflict in the record
evidence and testimony regarding the existence and scope of the
alleged guarantee.
Respondent Union's business agent, Wendell Phillips, testified that
the guarantee came about in the following manner : In late 1948 or
1949 Continental and another member of the Association expressed
the desire to utilize outside carriers for out-of-town deliveries. The
Respondent Union contended that this proceeding was contrary to
the then existing association contract, but that it would make an
exception if the employer would commit itself to be responsible for
the terms and conditions under which the drivers of the independent
carrier worked. The Union, in the person of Wendell Phillips, then
agreed orally with one Goldie, the general manager of Continental,
that Continental could use the services of an independent carrier, Niel-
son, and Continental guaranteed that the delivery of bakery goods by
Nielson would be done under the terms of its contract with the Union.
Continental commenced using Nielson at that time. In 1952 Sunrise
took over the trucking operation from Nielson and, under the terms of
Nielson's contract with Respondent Union, Sunrise also succeeded to
the labor contract. Shortly thereafter Sunrise executed a contract
with the Respondent Union and has had contractual relations with it
ever since. Just as Sunrise succeeded to its predecessor's business and
BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 991
labor contracts, so Sunrise became a succesor under the guarantee, and
during the period since 1952 the Union has had occasion to call upon
Continental to abide by the guarantee. Several times a year the
Respondent Union has asked Continental, under the terms of the
guarantee , to remind Sunrise of its delinquencies in regard to health
and welfare and pension payments. Until the more recent develop-
ments , described more fully 'infra, Continental has always complied
with the guarantee and the Union at no time dealt directly with Sun-
rise in straightening out such matters relating to delinquent pay-
ments. ' The guarantee was never reduced to writing nor was it ever
incorporated into subsequent contracts.
None of the General Counsel's witnesses professed to know anything
about a guarantee. Goldie, who allegedly made the guarantee, has
since died 2 However, Bird, Goldie's successor, though denying
knowledge of any guarantee prior to February 1961, testified that he
was frequently asked by Respondent Union to speak to Aksland, the
owner of Sunrise, in regard to delinquent payments to the health and
welfare and pension funds, and that he did do so as an accommodation
to Respondent Union.
B. The present dispute
According to Respondent's agent, Phillips, in February 1961 he
telephoned Bird to inform Bird that Sunrise was once again delin-
quent in its payments to the union health and welfare and pension
funds. In the course of his investigation of these delinquencies,
Phillips learned that Aksland was making payment to the Respondent
Union's health and welfare and pension funds for all his employees,
even though only one of them was a member of Respondent Union.
Phillips then made an appointment with Aksland and requested Aks-
land to produce certain records.
Aksland testified that he had occasion to call Phillips in early
March 1961, and at that time Phillips complained that Aksland's
employees were delivering to retail stores without being paid retail
commissions, and that Aksland's employees were working prior to
6 a.m. without receiving night compensation, and Phillips asked Aks-
land to come to his office and to bring his payroll and certain other
records with him. Aksland testified that a meeting was arranged for
March 14, 1961.
The record is clear that on that day Aksland met with Walsh, presi-
dent of Respondent Union, who had a list of questions prepared by
Phillips. Phillips sought information about the names of Sunrise's
drivers, the carriers and shippers with whom Sunrise was dealing, and
Sunrise's retail deliveries, which Walsh stated were prohibited.
1 The record does indicate that in 1956 Aksland dealt directly with the Respondent in
settling a dispute involving backpay.
2 The record is not clear as to whether Goldie's death occurred in 1955 or 1958.
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There was no discussion in regard to late payments or the union
affiliation of Sunrise's employees, and Aksland made an appointment
to see Phillips the following week. Aksland did not keep the
appointment.
Thereafter, according to Phillips, he again telephoned Bird and
informed him of Sunrise's alleged practices in violation of the con-
tract, namely, that Sunrise had six drivers working for him who
were members of Local 439 and that he was not paying bakery wagon
drivers' contract wages. Phillips also stated that he again demanded
that Bird perform under the guarantee but that Bird stated that he,
Bird, could not do so and was withdrawing the guarantee. Phillips
then told Bird that if the guarantee were withdrawn Continental
would have to start performing under its contract. In short, Con-
tinental would have to ship the goods with its own trucks and drivers,
or see to it that the goods were shipped by drivers who enjoy the
benefits of the bakery wagon drivers' contract rather than the over-
the-road contract.
Bird's version of this telephone conversation substantiates the fact
that Phillips attempted to get Bird to perform under the guarantee;
that Bird denied knowledge of the guarantee; that he told Phillips his
efforts in writing and phoning Aksland about delinquent payments
were an accommodation to the Union; and that he could not guarantee
Aksland's performance because Aksland dealt with all the bakers over
a large geographical area.
On April 14, 1961, Phillips told Bird he was giving Continental 2
weeks to get "lined up" or do its own hauling rather than use the
services of Sunrise.
On April 21,1961, a joint union-industry meeting was held at which
representatives of the Association and various Teamsters locals were
present. Phillips brought up the matter of the guarantee and the fact
that Sunrise's employees were not receiving bakery wagon drivers'
contract wages and benefits and that he had given Continental a dead-
line of April 29, after which date, if the guarantee were not per-
formed, Continental and other members of Association could no longer
use Sunrise. McKee, the regional director at Continental, testified to
this, and he stated further that Sizoo, the director of the Association,
attempted to get Phillips to arbitrate this matter as an alleged viola-
tion of section 8 of the contract,3 and that Phillips refused.
Section 8 of the contract provides-
With respect to bakery goods produced by employers at plants located in the area
covered by this Agreement, and which are sold to customers within the State of
California, it is agreed that existing employer-employee relationships subject to this
contract shall not directly or indirectly be replaced with that of independent con-
tractors, nor shall any such employer permit, allow, or enter into any agreement
with any individual or group of individuals to distribute such bakery products of the
employer when the truck, vehicles, or equipment used in the sale of such products is
not owned or controlled by such employer and such individual or group of individuals
are not guaranteed all of the benefits of the agreement with the local union of the
BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 993
At the request of the Association, the April 29 deadline was ex-
tended to May 7,1961.
The parties stipulated and the record is clear that on May 7, 1961,
Respondent induced Continental's employees not to put up orders to
be transported by Sunrise .4 The record shows that this inducement
and consequent refusal of Continental's employees to put up orders
for delivery by Sunrise continued through the hearing dates and after
dates the parties filed briefs with the Board. The parties also stipu-
lated that the Union induced the employees of Oroweat not to assist
in the loading of Sunrise trucks, which activity lasted from May 8
to June 14, 1961.5 Such conduct on the part of Continental and Oro-
weat employees constituted a refusal to handle goods or products des-
tined for delivery by Sunrise, and amounted to partial strikes.
C. Conclusions
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that there did exist a
guarantee between Respondent Union and Continental, under which
Continental was permitted to use the services of Sunrise so long as
Continental guaranteed Sunrise's performance of its contract with
Respondent Union. We find, however, that the guarantee was with-
drawn by Bird of Continental at the outset of the dispute which is
the subject of this proceeding, and that Respondent Union's admitted
inducement of the employees of Continental had as an object, forcing
Continental either to reinstitute the guarantee, or to perform under its
contract with the Union.
Contrary to Respondent Union, however, these findings do not mean
that it was engaged in protected primary dispute with Continental
and that its inducement of Continental's employees was therefore per-
missable primary activity. An understanding of our conclusions in
this regard requires an understanding of the relationship of the guar-
antee to the terms of Respondent's contract with Continental. It is
Respondent Union's contention that absent the guarantee, Continental
could not have subcontracted its delivery services to Sunrise or to
Sunrise's predecessor (under the guarantee), Nielson, because they
did not fall within the class of enterprises set forth in the contract be-
tween Continental and Respondent with which subcontracts were per-
mitted. While Respondent does not point to any specific provisions
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers hav-
ing jurisdiction in the area in which they operate.
It is the understanding of the parties to said Agreement that this Section shall not
apply to the individual independent contractors previously agreed to , nor shall it
affect existing policies in distribution other than the use of independent contractors
A The inducement at Continental included both the refusal to load racks with bakery
products destined for Sunrise trucks as well as the refusal to load the trucks.
5 Though the Respondent contends that its activities at Oroweat were not sufficient to
find a violation , the record is clear that the employees at Oroweat had been performing
these duties regularly, and that the Union had disrupted these employment practices
649856-63-vol. 13 7-6 4
'994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,of its contract to support its contention, the testimony of Phillips re-
lating to the circumstances giving birth to the guarantee, as well as
-the provisions of section 8 of the contract, indicate there is substance to
.the contention. However, the record also reveals that the basis for
the exception created by the guarantee was the fact that Nielson and
later Sunrise, had a contract with Respondent Union, and it was the
-function of the guarantee to compel performance of such contract.
Accordingly, accepting the construction of its contract urged by Re-
spondent Union, it appears that the guarantee operated to lift a ban
against subcontracting, but only to the extent of permitting subcon-
tracting with an employer which had an agreement with Respondent
-Union. Therefore the guarantee stands in violation of Section 8 (e)
of the Act,' for, though the Board has held that Section 8(e) of the
Act does not prohibit all agreements which limit an employer's right
to subcontract work, agreements which limit the right to subcontract
only to employers who have agreements with the contracting union
,do violate its terms.'
It follows from the foregoing that Respondent Union's admitted
inducement of Continental's employees to cease handling products
scheduled for delivery by Sunrise, which action constituted partial
strikes, for the purpose of forcing Continental to reinstitute the guar-
antee, violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act, which
makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to engage in such activi-
ties where an object is to compel an employer to enter into an agree-
ment prohibited by Section 8 (e) of the Act.' We so find. We do not
find, however, that the Respondent Union's admitted inducement of
Oroweat's employees violated 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) because the
record clearly shows that Respondent Union was not seeking to compel
Oroweat to enter into the guarantee.
We find, further, that Respondent's admitted inducement of the
employees of Continental and Oroweat to engage in partial strikes
violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. With respect to
the inducement of Continental's employees, Respondent concedes that
it was seeking to compel Continental either to reinstitute the guarantee
or to have its delivery services performed in accordance with its own
contract with Respondent Union. It is obvious that the alternative
P Section 8 ( e) states in pertinent part:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any employer to
enter into any contract or agreement , express or implied, whereby such employer
ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling , using, selling , trans-
porting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or to
cease doing business with any other person. . . . .
See Dish set No. 9, International Association of Machinists ( Greater St . Louis Auto-
motive Trimmers and Upholsterers Association , Inc ), 134 NLRB 1354 ; Automotive,
Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Local, etc. (Greater St Louis Automotive
Trimmers and Upholsterers Association , Inc.), 134 NLRB 1363.
873ighway Truck Drives and Helpers, Local 107 , etc. (E A. Gallagher & Sons), 131
NLRB 925, enfd . 302 F . 2d 897 (C.A D C) For purposes of this proceeding , it is un-
necessary to, and we do not, pass upon the legality or illegality of section 8 of the coutiact.
BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 995
avenue of conduct left open to Continental would require a cessation of
business with Sunrise. It is therefore apparent that an object of Re-
spondent 's conduct was to force Continental to cease doing business
with Sunrise .9 With respect to the inducement of Oroweat's employees
it is plain that such action was taken to harass Sunrise in the per-
formance of its delivery service for Oroweat, and was a pressure tactic
designed to compel Oroweat to stop doing business with Sunrise be-
cause Sunrise did not live up to the terms of its contract with Re-
spondent. Respondent, admittedly, had no dispute with Oroweat. It
therefore violated the Act by striking Oroweat for a proscribed
objective.
In Case No. 20-CE-5, the General Counsel alleges that the Re-
spondent and Continental entered into an agreement in violation of
Section 8 (e) when Continental, at Respondent's request, ceased prepar-
ing shipments for delivery by Sunrise's trucks. Record testimony
shows that Continental has, since the partial strike began, attempted to
utilize Sunrise but was unable to do so because its employees refused to
load Sunrise's trucks. As the record discloses that Continental never
agreed to cease dealing with Sunrise but that the cessation of business
was the result of its employees' refusal to prepare shipments for
delivery by Sunrise, we find that the violation of Section 8 (e), alleged
by the General Counsel, does not exist.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action which the Board finds is necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.10
Because the record indicates that Sunrise does business with other
baking firms in the San Francisco area, not all of which are members
of the Association, and because the record discloses that Respondent
BIbid. See also Local 1976 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
et at. v N.L R B (Sand Door & Plywood Co ), 357 U . S. 93; York Corporation , 121 NLRB
676, 677, 684
10 Member Fanning would limit the effect of the cease-and - desist provisions of the
Order to conduct involving Continental , Oroweat, and any other member of the Associa-
tion , and their employees . The record does disclose a proclivity on Respondent 's part to
seek to deny to all members of the Association the right to utilize Sunrise 's services
Thus in establishing the April 29 , 1961 , deadline , later extended to May 7, 1961 , Respond-
ent notified all members of the Association that they could no longer utilize Sunrise, if
Continental ' s guarantee were not performed by that date . It is apparent that, in Re-
spondent 's view, Continental 's guarantee protected not only Continental , but all members
of the Association , in their dealings with Sunrise . The decision herein precluding Re-
spondent from seeking to reinstitute or enforcing the guarantee makes it likely that
Respondent will proceed against other members of the Association , unless such conduct
is enjoined These considerations , however, do not apply to employers who are not mem-
bers of the Association.
Accordingly , he would narrow the scope of the order , provided by his colleagues, con-
sistent with the above observations See his dissenting opinion in W. D. Don Thomas
Construction Company, 130 NLRB 1289 , 1291, enfd . as mod. 300 F. 2d 649 ( C.A. 9).
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
viewed its dispute with Sunrise as an industry problem, we find that
the order in the case should enjoin 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) violations
involving all secondary employers doing business with Sunrise, and
their employees, rather than just Continental and Oroweat and their
employees."
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the en-
tire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Continental Baking Company, Oroweat Baking Co. of San
Francisco, and Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation, are-
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7)
and 8(b) (4) of the Act.
3. By engaging in, and inducing and encouraging employees of
Continental Baking Company and Oroweat Baking Co. of Sail
Francisco to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their em-
ployment to perform services, or threatening, coercing, or restraining-
Continental Baking Company and Oroweat Baking Co. of San
Francisco, by strike or refusal to perform services, with an object of
forcing or requiring Continental Baking Company and Oroweat
Baking Co. of San Francisco to cease doing business with Clifford
L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation, Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (B) of the Act.
4. By engaging in and inducing and encouraging employees of
Continental Baking Company to engage in a strike or a refusal in the-
course of their employment to perform services, and by threatening,.
coercing, or restraining Continental Baking Company by strike or re-
fusal to perform services, for the purpose of forcing or requiring the-
aforesaid employer to enter into an agreement prohibited by Sec-
tion 8 (e), Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of-
the Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby or-
n See Local 810 , Steel, Metals, Alloys and hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America ( Fern Can Corporation, at at ), 131 NLRB 59, enfg. 299 F 2d 636 (C.A. 2) ;
International Brotherhood of Elect,ical Workers, Local 501, et at. ( Samuel Langer) v
NLRB., 341 U S. 694.
BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 997
tiers that Respondent, Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Un-
ion No. 484, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of Con-
tinental Baking Company, Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco, or
any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to
perform any services, or threatening, coercing, or restraining the af ore-
said employers by strike or refusal to perform services, where an object
thereof is forcing or requiring Continental Baking Company, Oroweat
Baking Co. of San Francisco, or any other person to cease doing busi-
ness with Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation.
(b) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of Con-
tinental Baking Company to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the
course of their employment to perform any services, or threatening,
coercing, or restraining the aforesaid employer by strike or refusal to
perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require Con-
tinental Baking Company to enter into any agreement which is pro-
hibited by Section 8 (e).
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in Respondent's business offices and meeting halls, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by official representatives of
the Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
ent to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region
signed copies of said notices for posting by Continental Baking Com-
pany and Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco, if willing, in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after being
signed by Respondent, as indicated, be forthwith returned to the
Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX
To ALL OUR MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF CONTINENTAL
BAKING COMPANY AND OROWEAT BAKING CO. OF SAN FRANCISCO
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby give notice that :
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage employees of
Continental Baking Company, Oroweat Baking Co. of San Fran-
cisco, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, to engage in, a strike, or in a refusal in the
course of their employment to perform any service for their
respective employers, or threaten, coerce, or restrain Continental
Baking Company, Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco, or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, by a strike or refusal to perform services, where an
object thereof is to force Continental Baking Company and Oro-
weat Baking Co. of San Francisco, or any other person, to cease
doing business with Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise
Transportation.
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees
of Continental Baking Company to engage in, a strike or refusal
in the course of their employment to perform any service for
their employer or threaten, coerce, or restrain Continental Baking
Company by strike or refusal to perform services where an object
thereof is to force or require Continental Baking Company to
enter into an agreement prohibited by Section 8 (e).
BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN,
LOCAL UNION No. 484,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 703 Market Building, 830 Market Street, San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, Telephone Number, Yukon 6-3500, Extension 3191, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.